Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 10, 2006
By: Amy Sullivan

O'CONNOR SMACKS DOWN REPUBLICANS....Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave a speech yesterday at Georgetown in which she slammed Republicans--singling out Tom DeLay and John Cornyn--for undermining the judiciary. (You can listen to NPR coverage of the speech here.) She quoted DeLay's attacks on the court during Justice Sunday, and then turned on the sarcasm: "This was after the federal courts had applied Congress' one-time-only statute about Schiavo as it was written--not as the Congressman might have wished it were written. The response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint was that the Congressman blasted the courts..."

As for Cornyn, O'Connor said, "It doesn't help when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with."

When O'Connor announced her retirement last year, there was outpouring of praise for her "wisdom" and "moderation" and "thoughtfulness." That won't stop Republicans from turning around now and denouncing her comments, but it will make it harder for them to press their case. And--who knows?--maybe it will inspire some of her former colleagues across the judiciary. The pool of self-hating judges has to be fairly small.

Amy Sullivan 12:06 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (122)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You made that bed 5 years ago, Sandy.

Posted by: Preston on March 10, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, that's the last time I made my bed too.

Whatch you talkin 'bout Preston?

Posted by: kj on March 10, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Too little, too late.

O'Connor is going to be remembered forever for Bush v. Gore and the craven dishonesty therein.

She can join Rhenquist in Hell.

Posted by: Tim B. on March 10, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Wonderful to hear, and yet here's O'Connor's legacy in five words: George Bush and Samuel Alito.

Posted by: adam on March 10, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Justice O'Connor voted to give Bush the presidency in 2000. I hope the Republican wingnuts destroy her, she earned it.

Posted by: Hostile on March 10, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

3 years from now, Democrats will profusely apologize to Dick Cheney for letting him destroy America.

Posted by: lib on March 10, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Too little, too late.

O'Connor is going to be remembered forever for Bush v. Gore and the craven dishonesty therein.

She can join Rhenquist in Hell.
Posted by: Tim B.

I concur. If she thought the current lot of criminals and moral failures leading the Repbulican party needed to be checked, why the hell didn't she stay on the bench for just three more years?

Posted by: Jeff II on March 10, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

This is a remarkable moment.

Amy writes a column without mentioning basketball or exhorting Democrats to be religious nuts.

This is a good start Amy. Keep it up.

Posted by: nut on March 10, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

A few days ago, Sullivan posted this about Cardinal Roger Mahoney supporting illegal immigration. I wonder if Sullivan has a reply to Bishops urge: show false, idiotic compassion to illegal aliens. It's about another Bishop who supports illegal immigration, but it applies to Mahoney as well.

Isn't the only way to get what Mahoney claims to want through enforcing our immigration laws?

Isn't Mahoney's postion something that looks compassionate, but actually just makes things worse?

Please think about the issue in more depth and see whether Mahoney's position is really moral or not.

Posted by: TLB on March 10, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

The pool of self-hating judges has to be fairly small.

Yes, I believe it's just 9 of them. Unfortunately, they all sit on the same court.

Posted by: craigie on March 10, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like Bush v Gore regret/hypocrisy to me.

Posted by: Anonyman on March 10, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Whoa...doesn't take much to pick that Florida scab off around here, does it?

It's been shown that if the U.S. Supreme Court had somehow vanished in a puff of purple smoke in 2000 and the votes had been recounted according to the specific Florida Supreme Court order, the results would have been no different. Bush would have won by 493 votes.

This entire "damn the U.S. Supreme Court" is based on a hallucination, and always has been. But by all means, rave on.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

We are all Monica Whittington now.

Posted by: nut on March 10, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

here comes the idiot tbrosz.

Posted by: lib on March 10, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

lib:

A concise, point-by-point response. I am well and truly humbled by your correction of my factual errors. Now, all I need is Gregory's "shame on you."

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

She can freely say things like that. No one can threaten her with the withholding of communion at a Catholic mass.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on March 10, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

It's been shown...

Yes, demonstrated by Republicans for the benefit of Republicans. Next.

Maybe this is what it's like to be brought up in the South. Because I certainly plan to tell my kids that there was a coup in 2000, and that's why California eventually split from the rest of the Union.

Posted by: craigie on March 10, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Amy thinks Republicans will "turn around and denounce her comments."

Amy, I predict you will be unable to find one Senator, one House member, one high-profile Republican ANYWHERE who will "turn around and denounce her comments." Sure, you might be able to find an unflattering response from Lou Sheldon or somebody like that. But that is all you will get.

This is just more wishful thinking from Amy Sullivan.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 10, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I wuz gonna pick on Tbrosz's "It's been shown..." too, but craigie was quicker.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on March 10, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Fuck O'Connor. She didn't have to retire with Bush still in office.

Posted by: Mike Still on March 10, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

TLB:

Presumably, if Amy was going to respond to your crap, whe would have responded to your having posted on the thread to which it was relevant. Posting it on irrelevant threads because you don't like it that no one here cares about your one-not blog and your nativism is tiring.

But, to do your questions a courtesy which they do not deserve, the answer to both (presuming that you meant "enforcing our existing immigration laws without substantial change" when you wrote "enforcing our immigration laws") is "no". In fact, existing the existing immigration structure isn't even a way, much less the only way, to acheive what the Cardinal has stated that he wants, which is why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops calls for comprehensive reform of our immigration system, but opposes the draconian reforms that you appear to support. See here for a starting point on the USCCB position.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

It's been shown that if the U.S. Supreme Court had somehow vanished in a puff of purple smoke in 2000 and the votes had been recounted according to the specific Florida Supreme Court order, the results would have been no different. Bush would have won by 493 votes.

Your formulation is extremely weaselly, and you know it.

If I punch the hole for G.W. Bush and put in the write-in box "G.W. Bush," is my voting intent clear? That is an "overvote," and the machines reject them. If those overvotes had been counted, Bush would have received about 1,300 extra votes and Gore 2,100, giving him the margin of victory.

Would the overvotes have been ignored in a statewide recount? The guy in charge says no way:

"But the [Orlando] Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the Sentinel that 'he would not have ignored the overvote ballots.'"

Tbrosz = weasel.

Posted by: pk on March 10, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

speaking of gop....gale norton will announce her resignation today...according to a.p.


so does that mean she's about to be indicted in the abramoff scandal?

Posted by: thisspaceavailble on March 10, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

why does tbrosz hate america?

Posted by: lib on March 10, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe dictactorship is what we need, if we are to win in this war of terror. We need someone who is tough and, bold enough to declare a war on another country to prevent us from being attacked from terrorists ever. We need someone who is undeterred, fixated on the objective of killing all terrorists on this world. I found that in GW Bush.

Besides who cares about it anyway. Since I am a born-again Christian and he is too, I believe that the world will end within our lifetime. Let Bush do God's work in killing all terrorists on this world.

Posted by: Mini Al on March 10, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK
why does tbrosz hate america?

He hates us for our freedom.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Stop being such sore losers. I'd thought with all the recent setbacks, you liberals would be accustomed to losing.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 10, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

In another development, Joe Lieberman renounces O'Connor for her divisive anti-Bush comments.

The boys at TNR applaud, and Chris Mathews has an orgasm on the air.

Posted by: lib on March 10, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Freedom Fighter":

Stop being such sore losers. I'd thought with all the recent setbacks, you liberals would be accustomed to losing.

It wouldn't matter so much if conservatives actually believed in the Constitution and in responsible government. Crawl back to your slimy hole, "Freedom Fighter."

Posted by: pk on March 10, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Okay...shame on you, tbrosz. Bush v Gore was bullshit and you know it. And, I might add, had it gone the other way, don't even try pretending that GOP water carriers like you wouldn't still be raving about it.

If the votes had been counted -- which the SCOTUS intervened to prevent -- the results may have been the same. But by the legally mandated "intent of the voter" standard, as pk pointed out, Gore was the clear winner in Florida.

Moreover, the SCOUTS could have simply stepped aside and let the House of Representatives decide, as is their Constitutional prerogative. The result -- to this nation's regret and shame -- would still have been the same, but at least it would have been proper. Unlike Bush v Gore.

Shame on you, indeed.

Posted by: Gregory on March 10, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Stop being such sore losers.

"Sore" is subjective, but given the polling trends, I'd suggest that, while elections are a lagging indicator given that they don't happen every day, we're "winners" not "losers", sore or not.

And I think that's what is really bothering you.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and tbrosz? Your factual errors have been corrected for you time and again, on any number of threads. That you feign ignorance, and that feigned ignorance is disregarded in the appropriate manner, simply reflects poorly on you.

Shame on you, indeed.

Posted by: Gregory on March 10, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz has a great point that you professional bush haters cannot appreciate for its utter simplicity, logic, and rationality.

If you stipulate that no vote that was not counted as being for Gore in the first count will be counted for Gore in the subsequent recount, even if you had a recount Gore would have lost.

Posted by: nut on March 10, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

She didn't have to retire with Bush still in office.

Exactly! Sounds like she's crying crocodile tears to me. And a bit of, "gee, I wish I hadn't played ball with those bad guys". She's trying to salvage her legacy. Too late.

Posted by: ExBrit on March 10, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

And I think that's what is really bothering you.

Given how much the wingnuts have invested in their perception of themselves as "winners" and their opponents as losers, I imagine that, if votes do indeed follow the approval of Republicans indicated in polls, we'll be seeing quite a few heads exploding.

It may not happen, of course, but if it does i'll take great satisfaction in the thought that the GOP made their true colors finally too obvious to the public, and the public rejected what they saw.

Posted by: Gregory on March 10, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

On topic: What exBrit said.

Posted by: Gregory on March 10, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, demonstrated by Republicans for the benefit of Republicans. Next.

Sorry, I don't have the political makeup of the National Opinion Research Center handy. Do you? Link please.

From their website:

A consortium of the largest news organizations in the United States selected NORC to provide the definitive picture of the Florida vote count in the disputed presidential election of November 2000. The consortium chose NORC for this work because of its long-standing reputation for nonpartisan, objective, and analytically rigorous data collection and analysis.

The "I don't like the data so it must be lies" is not a very good way to make an argument, but you have to admit, it's probably not much work.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I have absolutely no respect for this woman.

I read the following way back when and, if true, find her behavior unforgiveable.

"Helen Thomas, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote that "[t]he story going around [Washington] is that a very upset Justice Sandra Day O'Connor walked out of a dinner party on election night when she heard the first mistaken broadcast that Vice President A Gore had won."

MORE FROM NEWSWEEK:

"The following week, Newsweek published a more detailed account:

[A]t an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, [Justice O'Connor] let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to Newsweek. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment."

Posted by: Garrett on March 10, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

What O'Connor and NPR both left out were their own roles in aiding and abetting these attacks.

In O'Connor's tenure, what was the largest act of judicial activism at the Supreme Court? Bush V. Gore.

Saying shame on O'Connor doesn't even begin to describe her hypocrisy.

Posted by: jerry on March 10, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

"It wouldn't matter so much if conservatives actually believed in the Constitution and in responsible government."

Why is it then conservatives favor strict constructionist judges while liberals favor activist types?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 10, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK
She didn't have to retire with Bush still in office.

Maybe she held out as long as she felt she could keep up with the job. But then, this whole left-blogosphere obsession with, everytime liberal positions get support from an unexpected source, finding some excuse to divert the discussion to discrediting the source for other wrongs (perceived or real) is kindof bizarre.

If a perceived liberal says something that fits into the right's message, you don't see as much of that reaction from them. And maybe the fact that the left consistently underperforms and the right consistently overperforms polling on the publics support for the ideas of each side suggests that its not all Diebold, and maybe we could learn something from our enemies about making use of PR gifts rather than shooting the person delivering them to us.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK
Why is it then conservatives favor strict constructionist judges while liberals favor activist types?

The judges supported by "conservatives" are no less activist in practice than those supported by liberals. That entire divide is an artificial rhetorical invention without any real substance.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, if you really think you're "winning," you seriously need a reality check. Republicans now control the White House, Congress, arguably now the Supreme Court, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships. There is no sign that the Democrats are going to reverse this situation in the forseeable future. The Democrats are in disarray, and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is more marginalized than ever. After Kerry's humiliating defeat, they are unlikely to field another presidential candidate who even smacks of being a liberal.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

""Sore" is subjective, but given the polling trends, I'd suggest that, while elections are a lagging indicator given that they don't happen every day, we're "winners" not "losers", sore or not."

Of course, and siding with the terrorists is patriotic as well!

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 10, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

What Amy Sullivan, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, and the USCCB propose might look compassionate, but it's fundamentally immoral.

Posted by: TLB on March 10, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, if you really think you're "winning," you seriously need a reality check. Republicans now control the White House, Congress, arguably now the Supreme Court, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships.

I think I mentioned something about the fact that elections for those offices only happen every few years rather than all at once every day, and that the winning is evident in polling trends. Maybe you ought to read rather than repeating the same tired old right-wing, backward-looking talking points without an ounce of original thought or attention to the point you are attempting to refute.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives should either shut the hell up about activist judges or ask for the impeachment of GWB for breaking the FISA law.

Posted by: lib on March 10, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter is very patriotic.

Posted by: nut on March 10, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

"The judges supported by "conservatives" are no less activist in practice than those supported by liberals. That entire divide is an artificial rhetorical invention without any real substance."

Assuming what you say is true. Does that mean rhetoric from conservatives is that they believe in the Constitution, while liberals' rhetoric is they don't?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 10, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK
Of course, and siding with the terrorists is patriotic as well!

Well, then, Bush -- who took forces away from our fight from terror to depose Saddam (one of bin Laden's stated goals), make Iraq the most fertile breeding ground for Islamist terror in the world (no doubt the reason that the preceding was one of Osama bin Laden's goals), withdrew our troops from Saudi Arabia (fulfilling another of bin Laden's stated goals), etc. -- really is more of a patriot than I had previously given him credit for.

But I think that's a strange use of "patriotic".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

"I think I mentioned something about the fact that elections for those offices only happen every few years rather than all at once every day, and that the winning is evident in polling trends."

"Polling trends" no more support your ridiculous idea that you are "winners" than do election results.

"Maybe you ought to read"

Maybe you ought to face up to what's happening in the real world, instead of engaging in wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK
Does that mean rhetoric from conservatives is that they believe in the Constitution, while liberals' rhetoric is they don't?

No, it means rhetoric from conservatives is that they believe in the Constitution, while rhetoric from the conservatives, again, is that liberals don't.

Of course, in the Constitution that conservatives believe in, the President has unlimited, dictatorial powers, and neither the Congress nor the Courts have any that the President doesn't choose, in his grace, to allow them to have. At least, that's what they seem to say it says today. When the Presidency was held by a Democrat their view was rather different.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

After Kerry's humiliating defeat

Kerry's defeat was anything but humiliating. it was pretty close the entire campaign, and the final vote was close as well.

look at 96 - Clinton got as many votes as Dole and Perot combined. that's a big defeat. look at 84 - Reagan by 58.8% to 40.6%. that's a humiliating defeat. Kerry just lost a close one.

Posted by: cleek on March 10, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK
Maybe you ought to face up to what's happening in the real world, instead of engaging in wish-fulfillment fantasy.

I'm the one looking at present evidence of public opinion, your the one looking back at the last set of elections and pinning your dreams on those results being repeated in the future no matter what happens in present opinion.

Who is engaging in wish-fulfillment fantasies, again?

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK


Why is it then conservatives favor strict constructionist judges while liberals favor activist types?

"strict constructionist" = "activism that I like"

Bush v. Gore was plainly right-wing activism.

Posted by: pk on March 10, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Does that mean rhetoric from conservatives is that they believe in the Constitution, while liberals' rhetoric is they don't?

No, that means the actual practice of conservatives demonstrates that they don't believe in the Constitution. Only a conservative would think rhetoric is more important than reality.

Posted by: pk on March 10, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: But then, this whole left-blogosphere obsession with, everytime liberal positions get support from an unexpected source, finding some excuse to divert the discussion to discrediting the source for other wrongs (perceived or real) is kind of bizarre.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, dice. (May I call you dice?) Just look at the Bruce Bartlett threads here and on other liberal blogs from the last week or two. Liberal commentators are plenty willing to give credit where credit is due.

O'Connor is being slighted not for her statement, but for the hypocrisy it displays. She lined up and saluted when it counted, and griping about the problems she unleashed is not worthy of anyone's respect.

Posted by: S Ra on March 10, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

I was reading this wondering what the heck Kevin was talking about because it seemed so petty, insignifiant and almomst incoherent, then I saw who it was written by and understood. The notion that republicans will "denounce" former Justice O'Connor's comments is silly. All judges feel the same way she does -- it is an exclusive self important club.

The comments by Justice O'Connor will only be considered significant by a few left wingers. Someone probably should tell Amy that once Justice O'Connor gave up her gig at the Supreme Court, what she says really is no longer of much significance. She was a pretty good judge, who due to a fluke of history, held an inordinate and excessive amount of judicial power. Now she doesn't.

Posted by: brian on March 10, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Re:Bush v. Gore. If it was decided the other way, for the same reason, well, it would be a better macro result of course, but I still wouldn't be happy with it. It was bad reasoning.

Here's my problem with it.

It's the most cowardly decision that I've ever seen a court make in my life. The decision, was that recounting votes created differences in the margin of error. This difference created Equal Protection violations.

What makes it cowardly, is that it makes any elective group, that has varying margins of errors the same EP violation. However, the SC decided to make it a non-precident decision.

If it was a normal decision, it would have opened the door for about 75% of all elections nationwide to be openly contested as EP violations, as different vote methods have different margins of error.

This problem still exists, and in fact, it's probably worse.

That's why it was a bad decision, and why it was corrupt as all get out.

Posted by: Karmakin on March 10, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, dice. (May I call you dice?) Just look at the Bruce Bartlett threads here and on other liberal blogs from the last week or two. Liberal commentators are plenty willing to give credit where credit is due.

O'Connor is being slighted not for her statement, but for the hypocrisy it displays. She lined up and saluted when it counted, and griping about the problems she unleashed is not worthy of anyone's respect.

Except your not really disagreeing with me at all. Thing is, I never said she was being attacked for the statement, I was saying that she was being attacked on the occasion of making the statement, rather than her endorsement of an idea that liberals almost certainly agree with being leveraged.

When we become more concerned with expressing moral judgements about individual actors in the political system than effecting change, we become self-defeating. Sure, perhaps O'Connor is a hypocrite. Certainly, enough ink and electrons have been spilt that few who care have any question how the left feels about Bush v. Gore; is it more important to underline now that "no, no matter what she says now, we don't consider O'Connor 'redeemed'" or "look, even one of the architects of the amazingly partisan judicial decision that put Bush in office thinks the right-wing jihad against the judiciary has gone way to far?"

There are times when individual judgements and accountability are indispensable and appropriate parts of the effort to make positive change in society. But there are also times when an obsession with expressions of moral condemnation based on past acts gets in the way of advancing positive change.

Statements like this can be a PR gift, if used right. Throwing them away out of spite is unwise.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

"The "I don't like the data so it must be lies" is not a very good way to make an argument, but you have to admit, it's probably not much work."

As you have demonstrated repeatedly.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 10, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

The notion that republicans will "denounce" former Justice O'Connor's comments is silly.

Where the hell have you been for the last five years? Anyone who rats out the Bush Bunch, Rethug or Dem, is dumped on mercilessly - Clarke, Wilson, Cleland, O'Neill, etc., etc. O'Connor is just as likely to be denounced and portrayed as unbalanced or a traitor, particularly by your ilk.

All judges feel the same way she does -- it is an exclusive self important club.

No they don't. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are just a bit to the left of the Arayan Nation. O'Connor was merely a conservative.

The comments by Justice O'Connor will only be considered significant by a few left wingers. Posted by: brian

That's true because, again, shits like you don't care about honesty or something so old fashion as the rule of law.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 10, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

No, you're the one ignoring all the present evidence of public opinion, evidence like Republican control of the White House, Republican control of Congress, Republican control of state legislatures and governorships, an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, and a Democratic Party that doesn't know what it stands for, has no clear leadership, and is in disarray. If that's "winning," you'd better hope you start losing.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

"5-4" O'Connor doesn't care about the rule of law, either. She cared a little bit about oppression when it affected women badly enough that even a Republican child of privilege (Stanford) like she noticed, but "the rule of law"? Bush v. Gore put paid to that canard for all five concurring.

Also, something every Republican partisan needs to repeat out loud before discussing the 2000 election: "Al Gore won the popular vote by over five hundred thousand votes."

Every other word out of your mouths is a weasely defense something other than one-man, one-vote. Whether you love power, cheating, or the return of the gilded age and the spoils system, it all springs from a defense of putting the losing candidate in office.

Given what W wrought these last years, it appears that democracy is indeed the worst possible political system except for all the others.

Oops.

Posted by: wcw on March 10, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

As an ex-lawyer and longtime student of Supreme Court decisions, count me as one more member of the "Bush v. Gore--let her rot" brigade.

Posted by: plashch on March 10, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Kerry's defeat was anything but humiliating. it was pretty close the entire campaign, and the final vote was close as well."

The final vote was not close. Bush won by a healthy margin.

As for Clinton, he won by running away from liberalism and embracing Republican-like "New Democrat" policies like welfare reform and market-oriented economics. His one big "liberal" initiative, universal health care, went down in flames.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK
No, you're the one ignoring all the present evidence of public opinion, evidence like Republican control of the White House, Republican control of Congress, Republican control of state legislatures and governorships

None of those are "present evidence of public opinion" -- or perhaps you could strain that phrase to include them, but what they are not is evidence of present public opinion. Again, the present evidence is that public opinion has considerably changed since the elections which produced those results, and against the Republicans. But enjoy looking backwards.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

As for Clinton, he won by running away from liberalism and embracing Republican-like "New Democrat" policies Posted by: Jason

No. He won because Dole is a complete dud as a politician. He wasn't even all that popular in his own party. I've seen old tennis shoes with more charisma and better talking points. Bob Dole made Mike Dukakis look exciting.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 10, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK
The final vote was not close. Bush won by a healthy margin.

A margin of 2.4%

Compare to:

Bush '00, -0.5%
Clinton '96, 8.5%
Clinton '92, 5.6%
Bush '88, 7.8%
Reagan '84, 18.2%
Reagan '80, 9.7%
Carter '76, 2.1%
Nixon '72, 22.2%
Nixon '68, 0.7%
Johnson '64, 22.6%
Kennedy '60, between -0.3% to +0.2%
Eisenhower '56, 15.4%
Truman '52, 10.9%
Truman '48, 4.5%

Now there were a few post-WWII presidential election victories that were narrower (including Bush's own popular vote loss but electoral win in 2000), but a 2.4% margin isn't "healthy", its downright anemic.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Has a troll on this blog ever said anything nice or are they always Cheney like.

Posted by: Very Afraid on March 10, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

The "I don't like the data so it must be lies" is not a very good way to make an argument, but you have to admit, it's probably not much work.

...as tbrosz knows from experience in his comments for the health care debate.

Posted by: Gregory on March 10, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Question for Jason who said:
"No, you're the one ignoring all the present evidence of public opinion, evidence like Republican control of the White House, Republican control of Congress, Republican control of state legislatures and governorships, an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, and a Democratic Party that doesn't know what it stands for, has no clear leadership, and is in disarray."

Jason, do you believe that Republican control of the White House and Congress is the same thing as conservative control of those entities? Because I think the Republican party has been hijacked by proponents of big government, nation building by the U.S.A., government intervention into social engineering (No child left behind) and the right for the executive branch to spy on American citizens without judicial oversight.

Cheney and Rove pretended to be conservative so they could hide inside the Republican party and drive it like a tank through the U.S. government. (Bush was the hood ornament.) The faux "Republicans" have certainly been accomplishing their agenda, which included piling up mountains of money for themselves and their cronies by gobbling unprecedented platters of pork, strengthening the power of corporations to make money off no bid contracts and weakening checks on corporate power. They've got a war simmering in Iraq which hasn't killed anyone they golf with, and which is a perfect place to disappear billions of taxpayer dollars. They still haven't managed to sell off our national parks or ruin Alaska's wildlife reserve for a pathetically small amount of oil, but they'll try to get around to it before Bush slinks out of the White House.

"Republican" control of this administration has been as much of a tragedy for conservatives as liberals.

Posted by: cowalker on March 10, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Yes and the war in Iraq is going great,The economy is screaming along better than anything Clinton had,The Natl.Debt is shrinking right before our eyes,The South Coast is getting cleaned up faster then anyone could have hoped for.Yes you lefties just don't see the light.

Posted by: Right minded on March 10, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Too little, too late.

O'Connor is going to be remembered forever for Bush v. Gore and the craven dishonesty therein.

She can join Rhenquist in Hell.

Posted by: Tim B. on March 10, 2006 at 12:16 PM

Amazing. I doubt there's anything Sullivan, or O'Connor, or anyone else can do to rehabilitate her reputation. FOX will give her a Reaganesque tribute when she dies, but there'll be no Repubs to remember her, and no Democrats will ever forget her explicit betrayal of the country & Constitution.

There can be no forgiveness for Supreme Court Justices or any other judiciary member who is somehow "unable" to apply principle where appropriate and necessary.

In this country, you count the votes. What part of American democracy and the rule of law didn't O'Connor get?

Oh -- and you can add David Trager to the list of fifth columnists.

Posted by: SombreroFallout on March 10, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

NSA wiretapping. Break the law, go to prison? Who has broken the Constitution and who has broken the civil statutes? I believe the penalty for illegal wiretapping is spelled out in good form in the FISA statutes. If you haven't read them, get a lawyer. If you are a lawyer, get ready for some prison time.

--Parrot

Posted by: parrot on March 10, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

My dear Tom Brosz,

Please admit the following facts:

1a. Before the 2000 election, then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who was also, in an outrageous conflict of interest, the head of the Florida Bush campaign, hired a firm to strip the Florida voter rolls of felons.

1b. No other state in the United States used a private firm to correct the voter rolls.

1c. Approximately 50,000 voters were stripped from the Florida voter rolls who were not, in fact, felons, and nearly all of them were African-American, and most of them were likely Democratic voters.

2. Overvote ballots, in which the voter punched the hole for a candidate and also write in the same candidates name, are such that if you count the Bush overvotes and the Gore overvotes, this would have added more than 527 votes to Gore's total, putting him over the top.

3a. The illegal butterfly ballot resulted in thousands of double votes for Al Gore and Pat Buchanan, mainly from polling places where elderly Jewish voters vote. We know anecdotally and statistically that most of these voters intended to vote for Al Gore. This illegal butterfly ballot stole thousands of votes from Al Gore.

3b. Contemporary media accounts reported that the illegal butterfly ballot was approved by a Democrat. That "Democrat" is actually a republican.

4a. Thousands of military ballots, illegally cast after election day, were counted in Florida.

4b. Military ballots where the date of casting could not be determined were generally counted in Republican counties and generally not counted in Democratic counties.

5a. Not every ballot in Florida was ever counted.

5b. If every ballot in Florida had been counted, counting only those that arrived on time, and weren't overvoted, Al Gore wins. Counting the overvotes adds even more to Al Gore.

So please stop lying about the election of 2000. It was stolen. The Bush presidency is illegitimate; we are living in coup d'etat engineered by Sandra Day O'Connor and four other Supreme Shamers of our constitution.

Love,

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 10, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ace and Gregory:

"Oh yeah? So are you!" is probably even less work as an argument.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Joel,

looks like you hit a nerve with tbrosz. Nice summary of facts, though. Thanks.

Posted by: Edo on March 10, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:
why do you continue with this charade of "if only my opponents would address the facts"? The overcounts have been addressed several times here (but not by you), and as Joel has reminded us about the fiasco of the military absentee ballots. as such, your initial statement is false.

of course, since you're the guy who's spent the better part of two months refusing to explain why he believes that the U.S. didn't attack Japan in response to the Pearl Harbor attacks, and refusing to retract that idiotic statement, we probably shouldn't expect that you'd practice any of the rhetorical good manners that you demand of others.

you're a bright guy, so what's your excuse for this behavior? is it dishonesty, of are you simply unable to say "i was wrong"?

Posted by: keith on March 10, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz -- Sorry to be late to this little hoedown, but the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, disagrees with you on the final vote count:

Gore -- 50,996,602
Bush -- 50,465,169

http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/2000election.pdf

You might want to have a word with them.

Posted by: CatStaff on March 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, when that scab comes off, it bleeds like hell. And someone says this hits MY nerves?

Joel has apparently made this his life's work. I actually think he wrote all that, and didn't copy it off some website. It might be fun to fisk that list, but I'm in the middle of a project here, and I haven't made the 2000 election my life's work.

A lot of people left their marbles in Florida in 2000. It still shows.

***

Catstaff:

Cute. If Kerry had taken Ohio with Bush three million popular votes ahead, what would you be saying then?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

"... professional bush haters ...

I take offense at that. I have never been paid to hate bush, and my amateur status is clearly intact. I can therefore compete in the Olympics of bush hating.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 10, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Cal Gal:

There are certainly more than a few medalists here in that category.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Nut wrote, "tbrosz has a great point that you professional bush haters cannot appreciate for its utter simplicity, logic, and rationality."

Only 37% of us Americans haven't yet realized that George W. Bush's presidency is a disaster. But even for those of us in the majority who do not approve of Bush's job performance, we don't hate Mr. Bush, at least most of us don't. Hate doesn't solve anything. If George Bush came to my house, I would invite him in and discuss issues in an amiable manner, and I would say a pleasant good bye when he leaves.

As for those who actually "hate" Mr. Bush, I don't think there is even one who is paid to hate Bush.

Can we drop the terms "Bush hater" and "professional Bush hater" from our discourse, please?

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 10, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

...conservatives favor strict constructionist judges..."

What a lot of hooey. Conservatives favor judges who rule the way they want, or they would yell just as loud as Democrats about Bush v. Gore. Scalia calls himself a strict constructionist but that doesn't mean he's not an activist. All the justices who voted Bush into office ignored the Constitution to achieve their preferred political result.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 10, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK
If Kerry had taken Ohio with Bush three million popular votes ahead, what would you be saying then?

"Turnabout is fair play"?
"Ain't karma a bitch?"?
.
.
.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

You trolls seem to think that somehow calling people "bush haters" is an epithet.

Anyone who truly loves this country, loves the Constitution, and worries about the fate of the world should absolutely hate george w. bush.

Or at least despise him. I'm not sure how "hate" differs from "despise"

But he has hurt this country badly. He has appointed himself dictator because we're at "war" that he started on knowingly false pretenses. He has done all that he could to bankrupt the government and give his cronies as much lucre as they can haul away. He is inept and uncaring and cannot, will not, hear those who have opinions contrary to those he has formed out of his simplistic understanding of how the world really operates. He is dangerous, but not to our enemies. He is dangerous to us, to U.S.

I suppose Christians can love someone like him, because they can love their enemies, but I'm not a Christian.

What do you suggest I should feel for him? Compassion? Pity? Unfortunately, he is too destructive to allow any positive emotion.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 10, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK
What do you suggest I should feel for him?

Failing love -- and I can understand why that is a challenge -- try "nothing at all". Hate motivates spiteful, counterproductive action; if you can't have positive emotions toward one person or group, try instead to be guided by the positive emotions you have to other individuals or groups.

Hatred is wasteful.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

"tbroz, why do you continue with this charade of "if only my opponents would address the facts"?

Well, it always worked before!!

.... whine

Posted by: tbroz on March 10, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz darling --

Irrelevant to our current discussion.

You said in your first post on this thread: It's been shown that if the U.S. Supreme Court had somehow vanished in a puff of purple smoke in 2000 and the votes had been recounted according to the specific Florida Supreme Court order, the results would have been no different. Bush would have won by 493 votes."

I merely pointed out that the boys in the back room at the House don't seem to have gotten the memo.

Posted by: CatStaff on March 10, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but "nothing at all" leads to apathy, leads to rethug (who certainly DO hate) running roughshod.

I do truly believe that you have to fight fire with fire.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 10, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

When tbroz says "it's been shown," he's thinking about a movie.

Posted by: Eric Senger on March 10, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

I can't help but think that people who have been or are related to fatal victims of Bush's ineptness aren't haters of Bush, and have every right.

To begin with that would be the 3,000 people who died on 9-11 because Bush chose to ignore warnings from: Clinton's departing message, Hart-Rudman Report, NSA/CIA Reports. Another would include the 25000 mamed and wounded from Iraq, or the 2300 who died there. Those deaths were in vain.

When loved ones die for reasons tied to vanity, or incompetance or ineptness, that can breed a lot of justifiable hatred.

Of course thats the tipe of the iceberg. Remember, we are out one major metropolitan area.

Nothing really compares to Bush's tenure.

Everything Republican's fear from a Democratic President is comeing True in Bush. Nearly 100% consistently errors in judgment.

And all stemming from Bush v. Gore.

If I am Sandra-Day, I don't sleep at night.

Posted by: Bubbles on March 10, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

"a 2.4% margin isn't "healthy", its downright anemic."

A 2.4% margin is a healthy win, notwithstanding larger margins by previous incumbents. Most political pundits seemed to expect either a Kerry victory or a much smaller margin for Bush.

"None of those are "present evidence of public opinion" "

Of course they're present evidence of public opinion. Election results are the most definitive evidence of public opinion. The Democrats have basically been on a losing streak for a generation. Thirty years ago, they dominated all types of political office in this country except the Presidency, which has long been dominated by Republicans. Now, the Democrats have lost their former dominance of Congress, of the courts, of state and local government, of all of it. And the liberal wing of the Party has suffered the largest losses of power and influence of all.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

If every legally cast ballot in Florida had been counted in accordance with established Florida election law, then Gore won by a clear margin.

But the 2000 and 2004 elections were both stolen before the 2000 election, when Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris conspired to deliberately purge tens of thousands of black Democratic voters from the Florida rolls by falsely identifying them as felons ineligible to vote. Had those voters not been deliberately disenfranchised then Gore would have won Florida by many thousands of votes.

The vast majority of these voters had not had their voting rights reinstated by the 2004 election.

Not withstanding the simpering whimpering of bootlickers like tbrosz whose most ardent desire is to be the worshipful subjects of a king, and whose only concept of "liberty" is "tax cuts for the rich", it is simply a fact that the Bush machine stole the last two presidential elections. Bush is not now and has never been the legitimately elected President of the United States.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 10, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

When the Presidency was held by a Democrat their view was rather different.
Posted by: cmdicely

Ain't it the truth! Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

Posted by: CFShep on March 10, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Jason, do you believe that Republican control of the White House and Congress is the same thing as conservative control of those entities?"

Not necessarily. But I do think this Republican White House and Congress are conservative. They're just conservative more in the Eisenhower, big government sense than in the Goldwater, libertarian sense. They're certainly not liberal. Liberalism is essentially dead as a significant political force in this country.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush is not now and has never been the legitimately elected President of the United States."

Still trying to win a battle you lost five years ago, I see.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK
Of course they're present evidence of public opinion. Election results are the most definitive evidence of public opinion.

I'm not contending that they are not evidence of public opinion; I'm contending that the opinion they evidence is not present. In 1972 Nixon was reelected with a margin about 9× as great as Bush's 2004 margin. Anyone pointing to that election result as evidence of public opinion in mid-1973 would be laughed at, anyone pointing to it 1974 would be locked up for psychiatric evaluation.

Elections are evidence of public opinion, at the time of the election, not well over a year after that.

Again, we're talking about the present, not the past. And the present evidence is that public opinion has moved significantly away from Republicans since those elections you are fixated on looking back on for reassurance.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK
A 2.4% margin is a healthy win, notwithstanding larger margins by previous incumbents. Most political pundits seemed to expect either a Kerry victory or a much smaller margin for Bush.

Regardless of whether it beat expectations, a 2.4% margin is an extremely narrow margin among US presidential elections, and even more narrow for a "wartime" reelection bid. Calling it "healthy" because pundits expected him to do worse is grasping for straws.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK
But I do think this Republican White House and Congress are conservative.

Well, when Reagan's Secretary of the Navy is running for the Senate as a Democrat because the Republican Party has gone galloping off to the Right, that's probably an understatement.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 10, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

The South Coast is getting cleaned up faster then anyone could have hoped for.
Posted by: Right minded

Well, come on down! We've got 'bout 250,000 folks down here who'd really appreciate the opportunity to have a few choice words with you.

An interplanetary express should be along any moment now.

Posted by: CFShep on March 10, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

CatStaff:

I merely pointed out that the boys in the back room at the House don't seem to have gotten the memo.

I thought it was kind of obvious I was talking about the vote total in Florida.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz wrote, "Joel has apparently made this his life's work. I actually think he wrote all that, and didn't copy it off some website. It might be fun to fisk that list, but I'm in the middle of a project here, and I haven't made the 2000 election my life's work."

My life's work, among other things, is creating political will to end hunger and poverty. For more on that, please see RESULTS.

I did write all of that, and I didn't copy it from a website.

I went to wikipedia to find out what tbrosz might have meant by fisk, which should be capitalized. The main point is

Fisking is similar to the line-by-line method in policy debate, where one debater addresses each point sequentially, dealing with each piece of an argument in turn, as opposed to addressing the entire thesis of his or her opponent.

Go ahead and 'Fisk' my earlier posting, Tom, I welcome that. I laid it out for you, point by point. Respond apropos to each point. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Go ahead, make my day.

Love,

Joel Rubinstein

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 10, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know why you people bother with me, I'm just a moronic douchebag who defends anything associated with Bush.

I'm "too busy" to address substantive criticisms of Bush v. Gore or the 2000 election, but amazingly not to busy to jump in and defend it at any given moment with the usual bullshit defunct talking points.
Hey, some organization that some article described as "fair" said the whole thing was kosher, so that's good enough for me. Anyone impressed with my intellect yet? No? Oh well, time to go back to my "free market" project, working on something for NASA. I hate the government, but my pathetic, stupid, ugly, unloved and fat ass is totally dependent on it.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 10, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jason: Still trying to win a battle you lost five years ago, I see.

Just another Bush-bootlicking Rush-regurgitating mental slave who absurdly postures as a "libertarian", while supporting the most anti-libertarian, authoritarian, intrusive administration in history, I see. And like all such, your fake, phony, hypocritical pseudo-libertarianism has no content other than a monomaniacal hatred of paying taxes and a seething resentment that the government might spend one cent to help those less fortunate than yourself.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 10, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know why you people bother with me, I'm just a moronic douchebag who defends anything associated with Bush. Posted by: tbrosz

Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 10, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm not contending that they are not evidence of public opinion; I'm contending that the opinion they evidence is not present."

Of course it's "present" evidence.

"Elections are evidence of public opinion, at the time of the election, not well over a year after that."

There are elections every year. There is no evidence from either election results or polling data that the Democrats' generation-long losing streak is over. That's hardly surprising, given their inability to formulate a clear message of what they stand for or to mount an effective political opposition.


Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Regardless of whether it beat expectations, a 2.4% margin is an extremely narrow margin among US presidential elections, "

No it isn't. It's a healthy margin. Over 3 million votes. Over 30 electoral seats. Bush won 31 states to Kerry's pitiful 19.

And not only did the Republican President win a second term by a healthy margin, but the Republicans increased their majorities in both the Senate and the House.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Jason, you're fucking pathetic. 2.4% is a "healthy margin"? Only for a braindead Bush-worshipping dipshit desperate to spin him as a great president--as opposed to the miserable failure that he is. Although I will say that its more "healthy" than the half a million fewer votes he received against Gore.
Enjoy that 38% approval rating as he rides into oblivion. Clinton didn't have such a shitty approval rating even during impeachment.

There is no evidence from either election results or polling data that the Democrats' generation-long losing streak is over.

You mean like the most recent off-year elections, where Democrats won the elections for governor of both New Jersey and Virginia? Yeah, "no evidence". You mean "no evidence" like the most recent polls which show that the public favors Democrats for congress by as much as 15% over Repubs?
Try doing some basic internet searches before exposing yourself as a complete dumbass.

Posted by: haha on March 10, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah, and when you win an election by a "healthy margin", you don't have to wait a day, or weeks, before determining if one state(FL or OH) puts you over the top.

Jason--proof that wingnuts don't go away, they just keep getting more stupid.

Posted by: haha on March 10, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Jason, you're fucking pathetic."

haha, you're a fucking moron assmunch douche bag skank.

"You mean "no evidence" like the most recent polls which show that the public favors Democrats for congress by as much as 15% over Repubs?"

Polls that ask people which party they favor in the abstract often find greater support for the opposition party, because it's not in the spotlight. But elections aren't about abstract preferences, they're about choices between particular individuals and real-world policies. When presented with those choices, voters tend to favor Republicans, and have done so for a generation.

Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Jason: When presented with those choices, voters tend to favor Republicans, and have done so for a generation.

If you conveniently leave out Bill Clinton's two-term presidency.

And if you ignore the fact that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

And if you ignore the fact that the most that can be claimed for Bush in 2004 is that in the midst of war, as a "war President" campaigning on national security, he was barely able to squeak out the smallest margin of victory of any President in a century.

And if you ignore the fact that the Republican majority in the House was obtained in large part through Tom DeLay's corrupt and illegal redistricting maneuver in Texas, which is going to land him in prison before long.

You say that "elections aren't about abstract preferences, they're about choices between particular individuals" and then in the very next sentence proclaim that "voters tend to favor Republicans" which is a statement of "abstract preference" if I've ever heard one.

In short, you are just another Bush-bootlicking drone regurgitating bullshit RNC talking points, and nonsensically and incoherently at that.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 10, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

If all of the votes had been accurately and honestly counted and Bush had won by 493 or whatever number of votes, I could live with that. However, it's clear that an accurate and honest count would have shown that Gore won -- never mind the dishonestly disenfranchished voters, so I'm still livid with rage, a rage compounded by the dishonesty in Ohio in 2004 -- and the colossal incompetence of the supremes' selectee.

Posted by: Brian Boru on March 11, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

If you conveniently leave out Bill Clinton's two-term presidency.

And if you ignore the fact that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

And if you ignore the fact that the most that can be claimed for Bush in 2004 is that in the midst of war, as a "war President" campaigning on national security, he was barely able to squeak out the smallest margin of victory of any President in a century.


NO need to ignore anything.

No Democrat has won a majority of the vote since 1964, nearly half a century. The two democrats elected ran away from liberalism. Carter needed a scandal and Clinton needed a strong 3rd party candidate. We'll have had 32 years of Republican rule and 12 of Democratic rule entering the 2008 election. A Hillary Candidacy will make that 44 to 12.

Democrats have been running away from liberalism for 20 years spending the last 10 trying to replace the label with 'progressive'. John Kerry actually banned the term.

Some trends:

Imploding Union membership.

Academia the laughing stock of america.

Hollywood 2nd only to Academia for comic material for the right. 2005 attendence down nearly 10% and 2nd lowest ratings for emmy's in 20 years. During which time it's become a fashion show.

Destruction of feminism as a political movement. The transparent bid to support Bill Clinton was correctly recognized as a selling of their collective soul. The feminist have become a liability.

Plunging birth rates now well into their 2nd generation especially acute among secularists and the black population. Blacks are now 3x's more likely to have an abortion. Religious conservatives having babies in the 70's now have grandchildren. Secularists have neither

Rise of the consevative South as an economic and population center versus the concentration of liberalism in urban areas. Democrats now have 4M more votes than they can use in national elections concentrated in CA and NY. Meanwhile Texas and Florida continue to grow and become redder.

The 2010 census will transfer another 7 to 10 house seats and electoral votes ot red states.

GWB keeps signing and negotiating free trade deals. Last week he announced an intention for a deal with Malasia. The previous weeks trip to India and Pakistan was also about trade. Globalizaton, the scourage of liberalism, is advancing quite rapidly.

Kyoto is a deal letter. It is a train wreck. You are now watching Canada, Denmark and Spain, to name only 3, look for a face saving way out of it. Neither can possibly come close to it's terms and face severe costs and ridicule if they stay in an obviously failed treaty.

The end of the ABM treaty.

The further collapse of the UN. We now have an entire generation under 40 who cannot understand what practical purpose the UN serves. Their view compared with the liberal idealists over age 60 could not be more different.

The effective dissolution of NATO and of these semi-permanent arrangements in general and the advancement of 'coalitions of the willing'. Americans understand once important relationships with France, Germany and Canada have become a severe liability. They have neither the will nor the means to face any serious threats. Worse they can and often will work behind our backs against us.

GWBs actions to run away from the EU and embrace Asia has the effect of splitting global liberalism in half. American liberals and European liberals are all about soft power. They have no power. They are now divided and repidly disappearing. European Demographics are even worse than blue State demographics.

Lastly, the Supreme Court appears to have changed in a decisive way. O'Connor is upset and perhaps rightly so. If Roberts 8 - 0 decision on the Solomon amendment is any guide we now have a far more decisive court not in away Sandra would have preferred. Affirmative action and partial birth abortion are gone and parental notification will be restored. All of her 5 - 4 decisions are being reviewed. She knows Alito is far more conservatibve than she. She will live to see her legacy reversed.

bonus: about the EU, The President of Poland made a speech last seek suggesting a significant change of sentiment regarding Poland and the EU. Conditions have changed 180 degrees since 1989 when Poland needed the EU/NATO for economic
and defense purposes. Those reasons are gone. NATO is now a shell and Russia more menancing. Poland needs and wants closer relations with the USA, not France and Germany. Chirac's comments a few years ago over Iraq, essentially telling everyone else to shutup, was incredibly stupid and still rankles Poles. The move by Germany and France to concentrate power in the new EU concentration was also a tactical disaster. The continued economic weakness of Old Europe and their intention to foster high tax rates and regulations is unpopular in Poland and viewed as a liability. In summary, Poland is having 2nd thoughts about being in the EU. Under no conditions will they remain in an EU dominated by France and Germany. This will be fun to watch.

Posted by: rdw on March 11, 2006 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I'm glad O'Conner said what she said. It needs to be said by a lot of people.

But I cant help but think she may only be counted on for clear-headed thinking when its her institution, her group that is being attacked. Your standard ethnocentric orientation.

She has been very over-rated as a judge as though people were relieved that a Reagan appointee did not turn out to be a total ideologue.

What happened to her power of independent fair-minded application of the law during the Gore/Bush election controversy? I contend that only a truly biased justice could make the mistake that she made. That was not a close call and is already down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court.

The only thing OConner can do to impress me is to publicly admit it was a mistake. That would show a little courage. Striking back at Tom DeLay, et. al., now that she is retired, does not impress me that much.

As a sitting Justice, she appears for all the world to have voted against her principles because she did not like Gore and did not want him to be president.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on March 11, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

RDW:

Whats the difference between you and Nazi's?

The loathing of academia and the intellegencia?

The loathing of international organizations?

The use of fearmongering to manipulate the public?

The use of "persecuted majority" to manipulate the public?

The unlawful invasion of foreign nation states on trumped up ideas?

The absconding of the innocent?

The incarceration of the innocent?

The torture of the innocent?

How about letting Bin Laden off the hook in the Tora Bora Mountains, after having murder 3,000 inocent American citizens?

The manipulation of the media, using propaganda as news?

Not one single problem has been spawned since the idiot took control of the whitehouse, and many new problems have emerged. He couldn't pore piss from a boot if the instructions were written on the heal.

Howabout the failure to prevent 9-11 after he had been at least thrice warned, by out going Clinton, by the Hart-Rudman bipartisan report, by the NSA/CIA a month before the event?

Howabout taking a full treasury and looting it? Imagine, if he had built on Clinton's legacy of fiscal management, we would have paid of the debt by 2012 - think of that - fully one third of the federal expenditures are for servicing debt, you want tax cuts? Pay off the debt. Just think of the real tax cuts we could have had if Bush wouldn't have plundered the treasury.

How about Bush throwing away, twice mind you, and with reckless abandon and with both hands, 90 years of accumulated international diplomatic capital and good will - good will earned by Americans fighting and dying in places like the beaches of Omaha, Tarawa and Inchon. Thrown away?

How about the undermining of Nato? Nato put the armed forces of 10 of the next twelve richest nations of the world at our disposal for the price of almost token diplomacy - thats a force multiplier at almost no cost (except the moral authority earned by Americans dying in places like the beaches of Omaha, Tarawa and Inchon). Force mulitpliers, willfully, wantonly thrown away? How about that?

Howabout indebting our country to communist chinese dictators?

The list goes on and on of course. That is just the tip of the ice berg.

That's not talking about corruption or the ice caps melting, the failure to plan for the administration of Iraq or anything else.

And you can embrace all that?

What's your problem? Did you flunk high school civics?

No self respecting person, who is minimally literate in Civics could embrace such gross incompetency.

You Sir, are either an idiot or a traitor to your country or both. I say, go, damn you, leave, if you have any decency left in you, but I see you probably have not.

Three years from now we may very well be fulling enscounced in a new dark age, under such conditions, by the way, Islamisist actually have a fighting chance. You see they want to return the world to a medieval age where Islam was the ascendent civilization, Bush wants to return the world to a medieval age where the aristocracy ruled over a society controled by religion. You see, that's why he's bungling the war against terrorism, they both want the same things: he has a conflict of interest. And so do you.

Posted by: Bubbles on March 11, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

You see, that's why he's bungling the war against terrorism, they both want the same things: he has a conflict of interest. And so do you.

The GWOT is going quite well. Al Qaeda has little support outside rogue nations and not much there either. The USA has been free to terror and no nation will willingly assist any organization against us. As least as long as GWB is in office.

The war in Iraq is also going well with Iraqi's clearly taking control of their own defense. Soon Iraq will be Al Qaeda's biggest nightmare. They've already been decisively defeated and it's only matter of exterminating the rest of the scum. That this will be done isn't in doubt.


Posted by: rdw on March 11, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Al Qaeda has little support outside rogue nations and not much there either.

Ever heard of Pakistan? Probably not. Moronic douchebags such as yourself usually miss the obvious.

Oh, and to Jason the Dipshit--very good at ignoring the two biggest and most recent elections--NJ and VA--both won by Democrats. Suck on it, douchebag.

Posted by: haha on March 11, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Al Qaeda has little support outside rogue nations and not much there either.

The Taliban have control of much of Afghanistan. The murderer of 3000 innocent Americans is still at large, and Iraq had nothing to do with.

Meanwhile we are out a half trillion dollars, with IOUs to Chinese Dictators, and twenty two hundred soldiers dead, over twenty thousand maimed and wounded, our nation the pariah of the world, and fearless leader, with a defense budget of $400 billion failed to stop an invasion by an army of one million unarmed illegal aliens. What is the point of having a defense budget if he can't protect our borders with it? I'm talking about a defense budget bigger than the rest of the world combined.

Why do conservatives hate America?

Posted by: E Publius on March 11, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

Why do conservatives hate America?

Au Conraire! It is we who make America great.

Posted by: rdw on March 11, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly